Received: from mail-bk0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:37506) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1S4TK3-0006zV-Eb; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:31:18 -0800 Received: by bkcjg9 with SMTP id jg9sf3832549bkc.16 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:31:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDE89H6BBoEvmOlKw@googlegroups.com designates 10.205.136.196 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.136.196; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDE89H6BBoEvmOlKw@googlegroups.com designates 10.205.136.196 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDE89H6BBoEvmOlKw@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDE89H6BBoEvmOlKw@googlegroups.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.136.196]) by 10.205.136.196 with SMTP id il4mr5897170bkc.9.1330936263660 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:31:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=7Oalr6ZvvFtg3VIv923TW+mDVuydBi6Glvns78VzfCU=; b=GW/z54N23b3xJLrQxCoMol7M4QoD83Xt5X3xjP70FDLWZUnNddFwoVn/O2iKn4dk5O KBHKRrWeWP5XoSCLCK6/Ac5CcrQ+BlER21SszUELNO9wo3bjxtVytnnfV2UKkttdDFhd vTntS7RZESzO1dERFtRDEJZoxUe1IFBWjC8tI= Received: by 10.205.136.196 with SMTP id il4mr1722051bkc.9.1330936260617; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:31:00 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.154.4 with SMTP id m4ls6235797bkw.1.gmail; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.143.143 with SMTP id v15mr1472634bku.8.1330936258858; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.143.143 with SMTP id v15mr1472633bku.8.1330936258833; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l17si17112343bkb.1.2012.03.05.00.30.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.44; Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so4361754lag.3 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 10.152.128.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.152.128.38; Received: from mr.google.com ([10.152.128.38]) by 10.152.128.38 with SMTP id nl6mr17569579lab.15.1330936258502 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.128.38 with SMTP id nl6mr14422763lab.15.1330936258246; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.148.225 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201203050232.47562.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201203050232.47562.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 01:30:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] What's the deal with me'ispe and bunspe? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043086c0e4363804ba7abecf X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d043086c0e4363804ba7abecf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Sunday, March 04, 2012 23:48:44 Jonathan Jones wrote: > > Why is bunspe defined as sister-in-law and me'ispe is brother-in-law? > > That's completely backwards. > > > > Specifically, brother-in-law (me'ispe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of > > the sister of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3" > > and sister-in-law (bunspe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the brother > > of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3" > > > > What if the spouse of the sister is a woman? Or the spouse of the > brother a > > man? What about the sister or brother of the spouse? > > If the spouse of the sister is a woman, she is sister-in-law and me'ispe. > Conversely if the spouse of the brother is a man. The sibling of the > spouse cu > spebruna ja spemensi. Whoever wrote the def wasn't thinking that two women > could be married to each other. > The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is taken into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I am a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of my married sibling. Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1 marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, and Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopted brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-law, even if neither of them are married. If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then every sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B, except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not siblings-in-law. > By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a > sister > > is a brother-in-law, and a woman married to someone with a sister has no > > lujvo. It also doesn't work for the relationship between a sibling of one > > spouse and a sibling of the other spouse. > > A brother of one spouse cu me'irspebu'a a brother of the other spouse. > > Pierre > -- > lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --f46d043086c0e4363804ba7abecf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.n= u> wrote:
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 23:48:44 Jonathan Jones wrote:<= br> > Why is bunspe defined as sister-in-law and me'ispe is brother-in-l= aw?
> That's completely backwards.
>
> Specifically, brother-in-law (me'ispe) is defined as "x1 is t= he spouse of
> the sister of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
> and sister-in-law (bunspe) is defined as "x1 is the spouse of the= brother
> of x2 under law/custom/etc. x3"
>
> What if the spouse of the sister is a woman? Or the spouse of the brot= her a
> man? What about the sister or brother of the spouse?

If the spouse of the sister is a woman, she is sister-in-law and me&#= 39;ispe.
Conversely if the spouse of the brother is a man. The sibling of the spouse= cu
spebruna ja spemensi. Whoever wrote the def wasn't thinking that two wo= men
could be married to each other.

The problem is tha= t it is the gender of the married person that is taken into account, not th= e gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I am a brother-in-law or a = sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of my married sibling.

Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1 m= arries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, an= d Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopt= ed brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-l= aw, even if neither of them are married.

If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then ev= ery sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B, e= xcept for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not siblings-in-law= .

> By the current definitions, a woman who is married t= o a woman with a sister
> is a brother-in-law, and a woman married to someone with a sister has = no
> lujvo. It also doesn't work for the relationship between a sibling= of one
> spouse and a sibling of the other spouse.

A brother of one spouse cu me'irspebu'a a brother of the othe= r spouse.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi'= e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. m= i patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )<= br>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--f46d043086c0e4363804ba7abecf--